m0darn @ m0darn @lemmy.ca

Posts

8

Comments

660

Joined

2 yr. ago

I mean both really

Not every racialized person reports experiencing racism. That can be for various reasons, one of the potential reasons is that they haven't experienced racism. Although I guess in that case they wouldn't be a racialized person... just a person of colour.

Yes what I described is class but as we agree there is a strong racial correlation of class in America. There is also racial prejudice which makes it more difficult for some racialized people to develop strong university applications, eg less encouragement to participate in certain extra curriculars. Racial prejudice that affected a parent's career can affect multiple generations.

I'm not a racialized person. My parents are the same age as Ruby Bridges, but didn't have to face racial discrimination in their careers. In 2018 My parents helped my wife and I buy a house (they gave us a loan against what they expect to leave us in their will, ie when they die we owe the estate $x0,000 dollars plus interest, but our inheritance is expected to exceed that amount). We still have a mortgage, but we were able to buy a house in the city in 2019. This is going to help my children get into university because they are going to be closer to extra curricular activities and summer jobs. This would not have been possible if my parents faced racial discrimination in their careers that suppressed their earnings.

I grew up in an affluent neighbourhood without really being exposed to racism or stereotypes. Also without really meeting people that had experienced racism. I would have agreed that we should focus on class because racism is only historical and will sort itself out when the old people die. I was wrong.

Race and racism divides the working class against itself, we can't ignore it, but we can't fixate on it either. We need to simultaneously advance working class interests, AND the interests of people disadvantaged by racism, because we need unity.

Yeah I agree with you.

When they said:

If there's hidden segregation in education (...) then universities doing less of it will become better over time.

They are totally ignoring the fact that systemic racism is self reinforcing.

E.g. if one group of parents have enough cash on hand to enroll their children in tutoring when they need it, and impressive extra curricular activities when tutoring is unnecessary, then the children of those parents will have stronger university applications than the children that have to work part time jobs. This perpetuates racially inequality.

It's not difficult to understand. It doesn't even require racial prejudice.

Yeah I thought the same about depose.

What happens if a retailer doesn't update their SKU codes in time for Christmas and charges GST on items that are GST exempt? But does figure it out before it's time to make a remittance?

I'm jumping in to ask what you think of my hair-brained idea of taking all these seized boughtback weapons and launching them into temporarily occupied parts of Ukraine and/or disaffected parts of Russia with ~2 magazines of appropriate ammo each. Via idk hot airballoon or something.

Since Russia already has the ability to distribute small arms to anti-Kievans in those areas, I don't think it significantly increases the risks to Ukrainian forces. Would it hamper Russian operations in any way?

Retaliation can get ugly quickly. Does Toronto still ship its garbage to Michigan?

Although I guess Ford wouldn't mind if Toronto suffered so he could look like a tough guy.

I reckon if you're doing the work involved in managing a rental property yourself, you're doing work and providing a service.

If you expect an employee/contractor to do all that for you, but to still collect profits: what would you say you do here?

Even if there was authenticated video of him hanging himself, it is still a scandal/ conspiracy cover up that it was allowed to happen.

It ought to have been impossible.

I'm not a person with a minority Sexual Orientation/Gender Identity, but here are my two cents: I think upvoting supportive content in a space that's safe and welcoming to people with minority SOGIs is zero impact, online commenting in that same welcoming space is about as impactful as upvoting in a less welcoming space, both of which are directly adjacent to zero impact. I reckon that negatively reacting to an SOGI antagonist (eg the coworker you mentioned), is an appreciable act of allyship, more impact than a token gesture during Pride. I'm not sure if it would be higher or lower than an anonymous complaint to HR about discriminatory language.

/u/Nexy is confused about the difference between a political view and an identity.

They are correct that there isn't really a difference between being an ally of a political movement like Feminism and being a member of that movement (although I think that movements/organizations with different priorities can be allies with a movement like Feminism, e.g.) a person is either a Feminist or not a Feminist there's nobody that's an ally of Feminism.

But there is a difference between advocating for rights for people with minority Sexual Orientation and Gender Identities (SOGIs), and being a person that is 2SLGBTQI. If we had a word that encapsulated the movement like Feminism does then we wouldn't need to tack on "ally". SOGI-ism? Good luck.

I don't give money to panhandlers because I don't like being solicited. (Also why I don't buy things at my door, or via telemarketing) however I do support the idea of programs distributing funds directly to those in need.

I support robust enforcement of anti hate speech laws. In fact I've reported hate speech/ hatecrime to the police before.

We're not talking about laws, we're talking about social media platform policies.

Social media platforms connect people from regions with different hatespeech laws so " enforcing hatespeech laws" is impossible to do consistently.

If users engage in crimes using the platform they are subject to the laws that they are subject to.

I don't care that it's legal to advocate for genocide where a preacher is located, or at the corporation's preferred jurisdiction, I don't want my son reading it.

The question was: is there a way a platform can be totally free speech and stop hate speech. I think the answer is "kinda"

Custodienne

I'm not certain what the external OP meant by liberalism. If they meant leftism I think it might be accurate to say that:

Leftist movements promise everything in the hierarchy, but depend on working class solidarity which (I think) is a form of transcendence. Leftist movements blame societal safety and physiological shortcomings on amorphous policies and power structures.

Whereas: fascist movements promise esteem (through the glory of the state), belonging and love (through participation in the movement), and blame safety and physiological inadequacy on 'outsiders' and political opponents.

I'm having trouble articulating how promising esteem through the glory of the state isn't a form of transcendence. I think it's because it's something that's promised, ie "elect me and you can be a proud aryan again" is different from "elect me because you care about the working class".

The former is "you get something for voting for me". The latter is "if you've achieved transcendence you should support lifting others up".

But this all based on my uninformed understanding of Maslow and political ideologies.

Listen to your body, assess how its feedback comports with your goals, then use your brain to decide what to do.

I think it may be possible if you understand a difference between the right to speak and the right to be heard.

Ie the right to say something doesn't create an obligation in others to hear it, nor to hear you in the future.

If I stand up on a milk crate in the middle of a city park to preach the glory of closed source operating systems, it doesn't infringe my right to free speech if someone posts a sign that says "Microsoft shill ahead" and offers earplugs at the park entrance. People can choose to believe the sign or not.

A social media platform could automate the signs and earplugs. By allowing users to set thresholds of the discourse acceptable to them on different topics, and the platform could evaluate (through data analysis or crowd sourced feedback) whether comments and/or commenters met that threshold.

I think this would largely stop people from experiencing hatespeech, (one they had their thresholds appropriately dialed in) and disincentivize hatespeech without actually infringing anybody's right to say whatever they want.

There would definitely be challenges though.

If a person wants to be protected from experiencing hatespeech they need to empower some-one/thing to censor media for them which is a risk.

Properly evaluating content for hatespeech/ otherwise objectionable speech is difficult. Upvotes and downvotes are an attempt to do this in a very coarse way. That/this system assumes that all users have a shared view of what content is worth seeing on a given topic and that all votes are equally credible. In a small community of people, with similar values, that aren't trying to manipulate the system, it's a reasonable approach. It doesn't scale that well.

I'm not sure that the best way for a software developer to support the war effort is by carrying a gun.

Hopefully if they support the defense of Ukraine, they find a way to support the Defence of Ukraine. I'm hesitant to prescribe the best way to do that.

Yeah that's a good point. Maybe I should amend my statement to say something like:

If this seems like an absurd hypothetical, consider reframing it. Multiply all the numbers by a factor of between 1,000 to 1,000,000 and make them "our soldiers", "bystanders" and "enemy soldiers" respectively.